FIDIC contracts will not magically solve all the issues in large public projects, but they would bring positive results in a desirable time, writes Mexican construction law specialist Juan Pablo Sandoval.
Public projects in Mexico aim to fulfil the population’s rights established in the constitution. For example, in order to grant to the citizens the right of health and a dignified social secure service, the state shall build modern hospitals and medical centres with qualified professionals and with high technology.
In fact, there is constitutional disposition (article 134 of the Mexican constitution), that establishes that the resources used to grant citizenship rights, shall follow the principles of efficiency, transparency and integrity.
Challenges for delivery
Even though the regulation for public projects in Mexico can be considered clear and strict, there are some issues that in general are felt to delay the projects but may not always actually be as simple as they first seem. For example, where the purpose of a project may be considered political, the likelihood is the project is developed in a hurry, overlooking the quality issues. The harmed party is then the citizens, who supposedly are to be beneficiaries.
Formalities in public projects (and in almost every administrative procedure) make every phase of the contract slow. A good example in public projects in Mexico is that there is always a person higher in the hierarchy that needs to approve every step of the project. Then the time it takes to get the ‘boss’s signature’ for a specific purpose can last several days and even weeks. Thus, a simple procedure that should take a few days to be solved can delay for weeks.
Another thing that obstructs the flow in public projects in Mexico, is the common rotation of public officers and the change in administration. As mentioned above, the public necessities are used by the current administration with politic hues. Thus, if a specific project is not delivered during the administration that started it, the most probable scenario is that the new administration will not assist the project as it should.
Lastly, (but no less important), in general the contracting authorities manage the methods and time of payments. So, it is common for the contracting authorities to extend the time to pay upon the argument of reviews of invoices, estimations, etc.
Are FIDIC contracts the solution?
Having these topics in mind, the question is – are FIDIC contracts the solution?
Some of the tools that FIDIC contracts provide would help to have quality projects delivered on time.
The concept of the ‘engineer’ is a tool that would help public projects to have a flow with less interruptions. Indeed, it is common to see in public contracts an “external supervision” or a “project manager” which in concept is close to the engineer role. The “external supervisor” or the “project manager”, however, are in the end external contractors so they suffer the same obstruction as the rest of the contractors. Also, these concepts are commonly, “on the side of the client”, so they cannot be considered in a similar way as the engineer.
The engineer on the other hand, if used correctly, would be a good solution since they can be appointed from the beginning. The engineer will act as an independent manager and will help ensure that the communication between the parties flows amicably, having a key role in the next concept – dispute boards.
Dispute boards are a very useful tool that can provide solutions for several disputes in construction. Some jurisdictions, like Peru, Chile and United States have taught us the benefits in both time and costs that dispute boards can provide to construction. In fact, dispute boards will solve the two main topics of construction disputes: time and costs.
Regarding time, dispute boards can help public projects to solve technical disputes in an expedited manner. First, because ideally the parties do not lose time appointing the dispute board members since they are appointed at the beginning of the contract. Second, because the timeframes to notify the dispute, the lapse for the other party to reply and the time for holding the hearings is reduced and are also stated already in the contract.
In connection with finances, such boards can also save money as the parties’ fees are already stated in the contract and are considerably smaller than arbitrators’ fees.
Also, using dispute boards will avoid the scenario where the parties file a huge and complex arbitration with several topics to be solved. Dispute boards will assist the disputes one by one for the benefit of the project.
So, in conclusion, FIDIC contracts provide several tools that can represent savings in time and money that can have a positive impact in Mexican public projects.
Specifically, implementing concepts like the engineer and dispute boards in large public projects will result in projects delivered on time and with less (or no) controversy between the parties, which consequently leads to more and better services for citizens.
It is true that the implementation of FIDIC contracts will not magically solve all the issues in large public projects, but doubtless they would bring positive results in a desirable time.
The author:
Juan Pablo Sandoval is a Mexican lawyer specialising in construction. He gained his law degree from Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, obtaining the San Ignacio de Loyola Medal, as well as the Excellency Award for the score he obtained in the national official test. He has a post-graduate degree in arbitration from the Escuela Libre de Derecho and the ICC.
Juan Pablo Sandoval is a contributor to the FIDIC Future Leaders Council annual book of essays on industry subjects.
